People v. Cronin

• Decision Date: 01 November 1983
• Citation: 458 N.E.2d 351,470 N.Y.S.2d 110,60 N.Y.2d 430
• Parties: , 458 N.E.2d 351 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael CRONIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 110

470 N.Y.S.2d 110

60 N.Y.2d 430, 458 N.E.2d 351

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael CRONIN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 1, 1983.

[60 N.Y.2d 431] Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, Buffalo (Peter D. Braun, Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant.

Howard R. Relin, Dist. Atty., Rochester (Wendy Evans Lehmann, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KAYE, Judge.

During the early hours of June 27, 1979, defendant, one of a group of youths, entered a Radio Shack store by running through a plate glass window, and several items were stolen. The evidence in this prosecution for burglary and related offenses showed that prior to the break-in, defendant had consumed up to a case of beer, smoked several marihuana cigarettes, and ingested 5 to 10 Valium tablets. The key issue for the jury's determination was whether defendant could have formed the requisite intent for the crimes charged.

The trial court permitted the defense to introduce the expert testimony of a forensic psychiatrist skilled in drug and alcohol abuse, but announced in advance that it would not allow inquiry about defendant's state of mind, his intent or ability to have intent, or blackouts, because those were the ultimate questions to be decided by the jury. Additionally, the court struck expert testimony perceived to be approaching, by indirection, these ultimate questions, indicating that such testimony would pre-empt the jury's function.

Because the wrong standard was applied, the testimony of defendant's expert on the key issue was erroneously circumscribed. We therefore reverse the conviction and order a new trial.

In a sense, opinion testimony of an expert witness necessarily enters upon the jury's province, since the expert--and not the jury--draws conclusions from the facts, which the jury is then asked to adopt. Such testimony, however, is admissible where the conclusions to be drawn from the facts "depend upon professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence." (Dougherty v. Milliken, 163 N.Y. 527, 533, 57 N.E. 757; De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717.) Both sides may of course cross-examine and impeach the opposition's experts, and adduce different opinions through their own experts. (Selkowitz v. County of Nassau, 45 N.Y.2d 97, 103, 408 N.Y.S.2d 10, 379 N.E.2d 1140.)

While controversy about opinion testimony going to the ultimate questions has brewed elsewhere, ¹ in this State the test has been different. For testimony regarding both the ultimate questions and those of lesser significance, admissibility turns on whether, given the nature of the subject, "the facts cannot be stated or described to the jury in such a manner as to enable them to form an accurate judgment thereon, and no better evidence than such opinions is attainable." (Van Wycklen v. City of Brooklyn, 118 N.Y. 424, 429, 24 N.E. 179; Noah v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 225 N.Y. 284, 292, 122 N.E. 235.)

The admissibility and bounds of expert testimony are addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court, and review beyond the intermediate appellate level is generally unwarranted. (Selkowitz v. County of Nassau, 45 N.Y.2d 97, 408 N.Y.S.2d 10, 379 N.E.2d 1140, supra.) It is for the trial court in the first instance to determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness. Here, the trial court permitted a psychiatrist to testify generally on the subject of defendant's condition given his drug and alcohol consumption, but felt constrained to draw the line at the expression of an opinion regarding the defendant's ability to form intent, only because such an opinion went to the ultimate question and would usurp the jury's function. The court failed to exercise its discretion because it erroneously perceived that it had no discretion to exercise. This was not a proper application of the test for expert testimony, and presents a legal issue for review by us. (People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 451 N.Y.S.2d 690, 436 N.E.2d 1292.)

Had the trial court exercised its discretion with respect to expert testimony on the subject of intent ² it could have found such evidence admissible. While jurors might be familiar with the effects of alcohol on one's mental state, the combined impact of a case of beer, several marihuana cigarettes and 5 to 10 Valium tablets on a person's ability to act...